RANGILAL CHOUDHURY vs DAHU SAO AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that the rejection of the respondent's nomination paper was improper under Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as the defect in the nomination form was not of a substantial character. The Court reasoned that the mistake of writing 'Bihar' instead of 'Dhanbad' did not affect the identification of the constituency, which was already clear from the heading of the form. The judgment of the Patna High Court was upheld, allowing the respondent's appeal against the election tribunal's decision.